Since Kate Knuth Isn't Likely to Read This Elsewhere

News you can use:

Email messages obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute via a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that the climate dataset of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) was considered — by the top climate scientists within NASA itself — to be inferior to the data maintained by the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).

The NASA scientists also felt that NASA GISS data was inferior to the National Climate Data Center Global Historical Climate Network (NCDC GHCN) database.

These emails, obtained by Christopher Horner, also show that the NASA GISS dataset was not independent of CRU data.

That's a bit of a problem, since it has become clear that the CRU data is pretty much crap. So if the NASA GISS integrated CRU data into its dataset, it means that the NASA GISS dataset is almost certainly corrupted, too. And, more importantly, it also means the NASA GISS dataset provides no independent verification of AGW.

Are there other datasets? From the article:

There are only four climate datasets available. All global warming study, such as the reports from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), must be based on these four.

They are: the NASA GISS dataset, the NCDC GHCN dataset, the CRU dataset, and the Japan Meteorological Agency dataset.

Okay, so the climate scientists didn't like the NCDC GHCN dataset and didn't trust the NASA GISS dataset, so they buttressed their findings with CRU dataset. Good idea? Not so much.

Here's the part you need to remember -- pay attention, Rep. Knuth:

These three datasets — from NASA GISS, NCDC GHCN, and CRU — are the basis of essentially all climate study supporting anthropogenic global warming.

March in Minnesota

In our neck of the woods, March is the one month out of the year that you can witness signs of all four seasons in the course of four weeks.

This morning, Fearless Maria stood outside waiting for the school bus. The crowd at the bus stop was dressed in all of their winter gear. It was raining hard and thundering.

We still have several weeks left in the month. Maybe the tree in our neighbor's backyard will finally drop the last brown leaves off its branches. Still plenty of time for one large snowstorm and a 70 degree day.

The money follows

During the Watergate era, we were told that the way to understand the scandal was to follow the money. Well, it's obvious where the money is going these days:

Loudoun ranks as the richest county in the United States, immediately followed by Fairfax and Howard counties, while Montgomery, traditionally one of the wealthiest, is now 10th.

Where are those places? They are suburban enclaves of Washington, DC. And they aren't the only ones:

Forbes magazine ranked eight other Washington-area counties in its list of the nation's 25 wealthiest counties, far more than any other area in the country. The rankings are based on 2008 median household income data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

And why would that be?

While other traditionally wealthy regions such as New York and San Francisco have suffered heavily in the recession, the Washington area benefits from the presence of the federal government and its contractors, the overall high level of education, and the area's high proportion of two-income households.

Yeah, having a leviathan federal government around does mean that there's a lot of money sloshing around DC and its environs. It's also worth remembering that these are 2008 numbers, which reflect the situation before the recession really hit and do not reflect the huge expansion of government that is going on right now under the helpful aegis of Barack Obama and his Hope and Change brigade. I'm guessing that the numbers we get from the Census Bureau in the next few years willl show an intensification of this trend, which began in the 1960s and first became evident in the 1970 census. One thing is clear -- for all the complaining that was done about those nasty Republicans and their animosity to government, they surely didn't change the trends very much.

It used to be that our country rewarded those places where innovation is strongest. Now the keepers of the leviathan, their servants (contractors) and mendicants (lobbyists) are rewarding themselves. Good to know, huh?

Just a reminder

If President Obama talks about saving money, he's lying. Allahpundit makes the key point here:

All I can do is try to contextualize this for you: According to CBO, based on an analysis of the deeply deceitful numbers presented to it by Reid and Obama, the national panacea of health-care reform will save us $132 billion over the next 10 years. Which means the feds blew through our big decade-long ObamaCare refund in about … 17 days last month.

Change you can believe in, suckers.

That's Senator Useful Idiot to You, Pal

Lindsey Graham gets schooled again:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wants to revive the bipartisan Gang of 14 — this time for health care reform, not judicial nominees.

But most of his moderate Democratic colleagues aren’t rushing to R.S.V.P.

Graham said Tuesday that a coalition of Republican and Democratic senators could rescue the Senate from an institutional disaster brought on by the use of the parliamentary maneuver known as reconciliation to finish the health care bill.

“Many Republicans who were ready to pull the trigger on the nuclear option on judges are now glad they didn’t,” Graham said. “This place would have ceased to function as we know it. If they do health care through reconciliation, it will be the same consequence. So if you are a moderate Democrat out there looking for a way to deliver health care reforms and not pull the nuclear trigger, there is a model to look at.”

Uh, Senator, aside from you and perhaps John McCain, who are these Republicans that are glad they didn't pull the trigger? You put false institutional comity over actually trying to accomplish something. And who cares about Miguel Estrada or any of the other people you threw under the bus, anyway? They don't matter as long as you have institutional comity.

And your good bipartisan friends, the ones you trusted? The ones you reach across the aisle to work with? They ain't buyin' this time:

But some of the moderates who would usually be the first to join such a push scoffed at the idea.

“Who are they going to get?” asked Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), a member of the original Gang of 14. “It is not the same as it was before.”

Of course not. Ben Nelson has no incentive to do anything -- he and 59 of his friends pushed the bill past you, Sen. Graham, and Nelson got a pile of money to boot, too. And oddly, Sen. Nelson didn't respect you in the morning, either. But why should he be different from the rest of us?

And one other thing -- the Democrats won't necessarily have to use reconciliation anyway. The Senate bill has passed and is now under consideration in the House. Right now Nancy Pelosi is using her wiles (such as they are) and whatever muscle she has available to get enough vulnerable Democrats in the House to put their necks in the guillotine. If she succeeds, the House will pass the bill, President Obama will sign it and reconciliation becomes a dead letter.

It could be worse -- as of yet, Lindsay Lohan has not filed suit to enjoin Senator Graham over using her name, but we're watching that front as well.

I'm not sure why, either

Chief Justice John Roberts had a few words to say about the way President Obama treated the Court at the State of the Union:

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Obama's State of the Union address was "very troubling" and the annual speech has "degenerated to a political pep rally."

Obama chided the court, with the justices seated before him in their black robes, for its decision on a campaign finance case.

Responding to a University of Alabama law student's question, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.

"So I have no problems with that," he said. "On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.

"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

I agree. No matter what you think of the merits of the case, it was a lousy thing to do. As Theodore Roosevelt said, the president has the bully pulpit. It's not necessary to be a bully when using the pulpit, however.

Roberts then made the larger point:

Roberts told the students he wonders whether justices should attend the speeches.

"I'm not sure why we're there," said Roberts, a Republican nominee who joined the court in 2005.

Justice Antonin Scalia once said he no longer goes to the annual speech because the justices "sit there like bumps on a log" in an otherwise highly partisan atmosphere. Six of the nine justices attended Obama's address.

It's worth remembering what Obama said that night:

"With all due deference to the separation of powers the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said in January.

As Samuel Alito pointed out in a very quiet way that night, what Obama said wasn't correct. But we'll leave that aside. It's inevitable that the Supreme Court is involved in political issues, because just about everything is political these days. But one thing is certain -- Roberts is correct in questioning whether the Supremes should be part of the kabuki of a State of the Union address. And no one should have to listen to any politician, even the President of the United States, level a charge against him without having a chance to respond.

Radio Free Dilettante — Cloudy March Tuesday Edition

Random, pretty much defined:

Last Five:
Crazy, Seal
Disco Inferno, the Trammps
Double Shot (Of My Baby’s Love), the Swingin’ Medallions
Smells Like Teen Spirit, Nirvana
The Bertha Butt Boogie, Part 1, The Jimmy Castor Bunch


Next Five:
Can’t Hide Love, Earth Wind & Fire
Something’s Changed, Sharon Jones & the Dap-Kings
I Don’t Need No Doctor, Ray Charles
If You Could Read My Mind, Gordon Lightfoot
New Frontier, Donald Fagen

Mercy for Tom Petters?

So the word is that Tom Petters has a tumor:

Petters' defense attorneys pleaded for leniency and mercy, saying their client suffers from a tumor on his pituitary gland.

"The long-term prognosis for Mr. Petters' condition is bleak; he faces the risk of blindness," said defense attorney Paul Engh in court documents. "The tumor is not growing at the moment but cannot be ignored."

As it happens, I know a little about pituitary tumors, since I had one that was growing and had major surgery in 2007 to remove it. It is true that, if left untreated, the tumor could cause blindness. At the time I had my surgery, I had lost up to 30% of my vision because the tumor was impinging on my optic nerve. Once the tumor was removed, I regained the lost vision within a matter of weeks.

One thing you should know -- pituitary tumors are not rare at all. In fact, up to 20% of people have them, although most are asymptomatic. This link from the Mayo Clinic lays out some of the worst-case scenarios, most of which were present in my case, especially the severe headaches.

So, is the long-term prognosis for Petters bleak? Not especially. If the tumor grows, he should get surgery for it and might require permanent hormone replacement through medication. I take a bunch of little pills every day and have my endocrinologist on the speed dial. But I can tell you this much: I live a pretty normal life now. And if he is treated properly, Petters will live a normal life as well. In jail.

A commenter's fears are realized

UPDATE (3/9/10): I got one important fact wrong in this piece, which is referenced at the end.

A valued commenter and concerned citizen offered the following opinion in recent days:

The Democrat agenda is about helping those in need, Mr. D - ACORN is a great example of this. Whereas Conservative Republicans (with that I mean literally the politicians and the media, not you personally, or actually any of the Republicans in my life) are about supporting the people who keep the needy people needy - the agenda to destroy ACORN is a great example of that.

As it turns out, our commenter is correct. The Snidely Whiplashes are on the loose and the agenda to destroy ACORN is indeed happening apace, and only one state away from Minnesota. Look what's happening in Wisconsin:

MILWAUKEE – Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen announced today that the Milwaukee Election Fraud Task Force has brought additional electoral fraud cases against five Wisconsin residents. The Department of Justice, acting as Special Prosecutor for Milwaukee County, has filed felony charges against Maria Miles, Kevin Clancy, Michael Henderson, Herbert Gunka, and Suzanne Gunka, all alleging election fraud arising out of the November 4, 2008, Presidential Election. “The integrity of elections is dependent upon citizens and officials insisting they be conducted lawfully. Wisconsin’s citizens should not have to wonder whether their vote has been negated or diminished by illegally cast ballots,” Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said.

Sounds like a grandstand play to me. We all know there's no voter fraud -- it just doesn't happen, as social justice centers at top-flight law schools remind us. This must be a misunderstanding or something. And what does this have to do with ACORN anyway?

According to the criminal complaints, Miles and Clancy served as Special Registration Deputies (“SRD”) for the City of Milwaukee in advance of the 2008 Presidential Election. Each worked for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (“ACORN”). Miles and Clancy are each charged with the felony offense of Falsely Procuring Voter Registration as Party to a Crime. The complaint alleges that Miles and Clancy submitted multiple voter registration applications for the same individuals, and also were part of a scheme in which they and other SRDs registered each other to vote multiple times in order to meet voter registration quotas imposed by ACORN.

Really? Can't be. Must be some trumped up thing. This Van Hollen guy can't be serious about this.

Henderson is charged with one count of Voting by a Disqualified Person and one count of Providing False Information to Election Officials, both felonies. The complaint alleges that Henderson registered to vote at the polls on November 4, 2008, thereby certifying that he was a qualified elector. It also alleges that he then cast a ballot. At that time, Henderson was on an active period of probation for felony convictions from Rock County. A felon on an active period of supervision for a felony offense is prohibited by state law from voting in any election.

Now, I lived in Rock County, Wisconsin for six years in the 1980s and I know how things are there. That's not possible. There were never any felons in Rock County. It must be a mistake.

Herbert and Suzanne Gunka are each charged with the felony offense of Double Voting. The complaint alleges that they each voted in the November 2008 election by casting absentee ballots before the election. The complaint also alleges that after casting absentee ballots, they each voted in person at their polling place on election day.

But that doesn't happen. There is no voter fraud, as reputable online journals like Slate assure us. This must be some Republican plot to keep the poor and needy from exercising their franchise.

So what is the deal here, anyway? What is Van Hollen's excuse for this sort of reckless behavior? The complaint against the ACORN employees, Miles and Clancy, is here, in a PDF format. The invaluable Ed Morrissey has compiled some of the key information:

The Miles-Clancy complaint has some interesting allegations, which will undoubtedly create problems for ACORN in the future. According to Maria Miles, ACORN required employees to register five people in a six-hour period. Over the course of a week, that requirement gradually increased to 20 new registrants in a six-hour period. If they failed to meet their goals on any one day, they would get docked an hour’s pay. If they failed to meet that goal three days in a row, ACORN would fire them.

Meet your quota or get fired? Are we sure of that? ACORN exists to help the needy. This sounds like something out of Glengarry Glen Ross. Coffee is for closers, after all. But that can't be right, can it? Organizations that help the needy would never behave that way. And of course it couldn't be like that. It was worse. Let Morrissey explain:

So instead of getting fired, ACORN workers began registering each other. Not only did that protect their jobs, but one of them began having sex with the supervisor in order to keep from getting fired.

Registering each other? That's a handy euphemism for Topic A. But that can't be right. Again, from the complaint:

Miles indicated that at one point, Gabriele Robinson began sleeping with their supervisor, Edward Williams. Miles stated she would go to Robinson’s residence and hang out for the day. She stated at the end of the day, Williams signed off as though they had turned in their 20 signatures for that day, giving them their pay. Miles stated that she and Robinson did this at least once a week, and that they received payments for those days when they did not turn in registrations because Robinson was sleeping with Williams.

Miles also advised the agents that the individuals would travel in groups and, if and individual registered a citizen to vote, the other SRDs would tell the citizen, “It doesn’t hurt if you sign this one also.” Thus, multiple SRDs recorded a signature from the same person. Miles stated that they were “all hoodlums” working for ACORN and they all had criminal histories, and that they were going to “do whatever they had to do” to be able to gain their money at the end of the day.

Sometimes people have to "do whatever they had to do." After all, coffee is for closers. And if it requires registering each other, hey -- what are you gonna do?

This is all a novel version of helping the needy. But one still has to doubt the veracity of the complaint, which must be a dirty trick from a bitter Republican. Well, one problem with that -- Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, a fellow with a name that is almost redolent of Gilded Age perfidy, is a Democrat.*

*Update: I got that last part wrong. As it turns out, Van Hollen is that rarest of rare birds, a Republican Attorney General. So our valued commenter's theory might be right. Except for one thing -- the prosecutors Van Hollen is working with in Milwaukee County aren't Republicans. And one of the lead prosecutors tells an interesting story here:

Milwaukee police officers sat on their hands for months last year instead of investigating possible voter fraud cases from the 2008 general election.

It's an incredible claim, but it's coming from a credible source:

Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf, the Milwaukee County prosecutor responsible for overseeing campaign and election issues.

"Honestly, the Milwaukee Police Department largely ignored your double voter (and other) referrals received in January 2009 for the first six months of 2009," Landgraf wrote in an e-mail to a city elections official on Jan. 26.

Speaking with unguarded candor, the veteran prosecutor said in his note that MPD's tardy response had a major impact. The cases involve voters who may have cast more than one ballot, felons who may have voted illegally and other cases of possible election fraud.

"Sadly, several probable cases of genuine voter fraud were harmed by that delay," Landgraf wrote in an e-mail obtained through an open records request.

The assistant district attorney was even more pessimistic about the investigation of more than 500 individuals who registered to vote on election day but whose addresses could not be confirmed later by postcard.

"I do not expect them to ever get to the Address Cards," he said of the Milwaukee cops.

Out of the millions

George Will has been writing a national news column for about 35 years now. If you assume that he writes twice a week and that each column averages about 800 words, that means he's written, conservatively, 3 million words. And all this is aside from his bi-weekly column for Newsweek, his various baseball books and the thousands of words he's uttered as a fixture on the Sunday chat shows, which have probably added a few million more words to the total.

You could conceivably ignore every word Will has written or spoken in that 35-year career and still celebrate him for the following exchange he had yesterday with Robert Reich:

ROBERT REICH, AMERICAN PROSPECT: The health insurers are not, George, you said they’re popular and everybody likes their health insurer. They like their doctor. They hate their health insurer. And health insurance is going up in terms of rates 20, 30, 40, 50 percent in many states. In fact, Goldman Sachs just this past week has said to its many of its investors, “Invest in some insurance companies because they don’t have competition, and they have, are exhibiting huge profits.” That is money directly out of the pockets of Americans.

GEORGE WILL, ABC: A, you say they have huge profits. As you know, confiscate all the profits of all the health insurance companies, with those profits you could finance our healthcare for 48 hours. What you do for the next 363 days I don’t know. Second, you say there’s not enough competition? Fine, let them compete in a national market across state lines.

REICH: Yes, let them compete across state lines, fine. But not a race to the bottom. Set minimum federal standards because we’ve seen over and over again that the recipients of health insurance don’t know what they are buying very often. Until there are common standards, minimal standards, then people are going to be taken. And that is what’s happened over and over again.

WILL: There you have the premise of this legislation and the core of today’s liberalism: the American people are such dopes they can’t be counted upon to buy their own insurance.

Emphasis mine. Those 30 words indeed sum up liberalism and the liberal impulse -- the overweening need to protect people from their own dopiness. You aren't competent to make such decisions, so Robert Reich is duty-bound to make them for you.

****

One of my best childhood friends is a hard-core lefty. I remember a time, many years ago, when I met him in Milwaukee for a night of bar-hopping. I had brought along another friend of mine, a college friend that my childhood friend did not know well. After the bars closed that evening, we decided to go get a little late night nosh and visited the Marquette University-area Real Chili, a true Milwaukee institution. My college friend had not been there before and before he could place an order he needed to make a trip down the hall, if you know what I mean. My childhood friend, filled with the certainty that he knew what my college friend ought to eat, placed an order for my friend and then told him what he was having, despite my warning that my college friend wouldn't appreciate his effort. As I expected, my college friend took umbrage and I had to stop the two from engaging in a fistfight in the restaurant.

There is an impulse in many lefties to do things like that, to place an order because they know better. It animates their push to enact Obamacare, to install a cap and trade regulatory scheme to protect us from our own exhalation, to create federal laws regarding the installation of pool drains. Even if there is an existing set of regulators and regulations in place, it may not be sufficient. There must be ever more power concentrated among those who know better. It is the reason that a valued commenter on this blog wrote the following the other day:

The Democrat agenda is about helping those in need, Mr. D - ACORN is a great example of this. Whereas Conservative Republicans (with that I mean literally the politicians and the media, not you personally, or actually any of the Republicans in my life) are about supporting the people who keep the needy people needy - the agenda to destroy ACORN is a great example of that.

I'm going to assume the commenter is serious in believing that. Another valued commenter offered the following riposte:

the relationship tween the democrats and 'the needy' is akin to smokers' relatiosnhip to r j reynolds.

Leaving the typos aside, who has the better argument? Consider what Robert Reich believes, then draw your own conclusions. I trust you to do that.

il miglior fabbro

No matter what else you read today, make sure you read Mitch's piece on the life and times of Paul Ehrlich, perhaps the most dogged Cassandra the world has ever known. Just a quick taste:

His body of work – at least, his work that impinges on politics and human events – has had three things in common.

He’s blamed Western Civilization – especially our economic freedom – for successive waves of self-caused, predicted catastrophes.

He’s prescription to deal with these catastrophes has been, in every case, for the individual to surrender his/her autonomy, and even future, to an all-wise, all-knowing, all-powerful central entity that’ll make all the hard, life and death choices for them.

And he’s been wrong on every count. Humans, rather than sitting in caves waiting to get eaten by sabre tooth tigers, invented spears. Faced with floods, we invented the sandbag as an alternative to drowning and mildew. And faced with shortage of resources, we adapt. And humanity in the past forty years has adapted – learning to grow crops where we didn’t before, learning to conserve farmland and water, developing new crops and practices.

It continues to amaze me that Paul Ehrlich isn't hooted off the stage. But there he is. Read the whole thing. And share it with your friends.

Have we caught Lord Hee-Haw? Or are we just getting our Yahyas out?

Ah the fog of war. First, we thought we had Adam Gadahn, the former California farm boy turned al-Qaida operative.

Two Pakistani officers and a government official said Sunday that an American charged with treason for working with al-Qaida had been captured, a development that could deliver another significant blow in the U.S.-led battle against the terror network.

U.S. defense, intelligence and law enforcement officials could not immediately verify the reported detention of Adam Gadahn, a 31-year-old spokesman for al-Qaida who has appeared on videos threatening the West, including one that emerged earlier Sunday.

The reported arrest of Gadahn follows the recent detention of several Afghan Taliban commanders in Karachi, including the group's No. 2. Those detentions have been seen as a sign that Pakistan, which has been criticized as an untrustworthy ally, was cooperating more fully with Washington.

CBS begs to differ:

An "important Taliban militant" was arrested today in Pakistan. But that is where the confusion started.

Earlier it was reported by Pakistani media that intelligence agents had arrested Adam Gadahn, the American-born spokesman for al Qaeda, in an operation in the southern city of Karachi. It was further reported by the Associated Press and Reuters that Gadahn had been arrested, sourcing security officials.

CBS News was told by sources in the Pakistan government that it was Gadahn, even after U.S. officials refused to confirm it was the California native for whom a $1 million reward has been posted.

Now, CBS News' Farhan Bokhari in Islamabad writes that earlier reports the detained individual was Gadahn proved false. According to a Pakistan security official who spoke with CBS News on condition of anonymity, the arrested individual is in fact "a Taliban militant leader who is known as Abu Yahya."

It may not get sorted out for a while. But I sure hope we do have Gadahn. The dude really deserves a little justice.

The Greeks Don't Want No Freaks. . .

. . . But the Greek bureaucrats intend to get paid, no matter what. Behold our future:

Dozens of civil servants occupied a government printing building Saturday in the latest expression of public anger against debt-driven austerity measures as Greece's premier vowed they would pay off.

The sit-in by interior ministry workers in Athens began late Friday, after a fresh bout of nationwide strikes and protests.

The protesters unfurled a banner in front of the national printing office scrawled with the words "Occupation", and "Enough is enough," police said, in a bid to prevent the latest round of parliament-approved austerity measures from being published in the government gazette.

And who could blame the bureaucrats? They get a pretty sweet deal, as Mark Steyn points out:

That's the point Greece is at. Its socialist government has been forced into supporting a package of austerity measures. The Greek people's response is: Nuts to that. Public sector workers have succeeded in redefining time itself: Every year, they receive 14 monthly payments. You do the math. And for about seven months' work - for many of them the workday ends at 2:30 p.m. When they retire, they get 14 monthly pension payments. In other words: Economic reality is not my problem. I want my benefits. And, if it bankrupts the entire state a generation from now, who cares as long as they keep the checks coming until I croak?

One other thing -- these tireless public servants get to retire at 58. What's the problem with that? Well, among other things, there simply aren't enough private sector Greeks around to foot the bill for all this. Steyn:

What's happening in the developed world today isn't so very hard to understand: The 20th century Bismarckian welfare state has run out of people to stick it to. In America, the feckless insatiable boobs in Washington, Sacramento, Albany and elsewhere are screwing over our kids and grandkids. In Europe, they've reached the next stage in social democratic evolution: There are no kids or grandkids to screw over. The United States has a fertility rate of around 2.1, or just over two kids per couple. Greece has a fertility rate of about 1.3: 10 grandparents have six kids have four grandkids - i.e., the family tree is upside down. Demographers call 1.3 "lowest-low" fertility - the point from which no society has ever recovered. And compared to Spain and Italy, Greece has the least worst fertility rate in Mediterranean Europe.

So you can't borrow against the future because, in the most basic sense, you don't have one. Greeks in the public sector retire at 58, which sounds great. But, when 10 grandparents have four grandchildren, who pays for you to spend the last third of your adult life loafing around?

Well, in the case of the Greeks, they were hoping that maybe, as members of the EU, that their other partners might pick up the tab, especially Germany. But the Germans have their own problems:

Unfortunately, Germany is no longer an economic powerhouse. As Angela Merkel pointed out a year ago, for Germany, an Obama-sized stimulus was out of the question simply because its foreign creditors know there are not enough young Germans around ever to repay it. Over 30 percent of German women are childless; among German university graduates, it's over 40 percent. And for the ever dwindling band of young Germans who make it out of the maternity ward, there's precious little reason to stick around. Why be the last handsome blond lederhosen-clad Aryan lad working the late shift at the beer garden in order to prop up singlehandedly entire retirement homes? And that's before the EU decides to add the Greeks to your burdens. Germans, who retire at 67, are now expected to sustain the unsustainable 14 monthly payments per year for Greeks who retire at 58.

And thus Steyn gets to the point: somebody might pay, but don't expect them to pay on your terms, as the Greeks are discovering:

The European Union has concluded that the Greek government's austerity measures are insufficient and, as a condition of bailout, has demanded something more robust. Greece is no longer a sovereign state: It's General Motors, and the EU is Washington, and the Greek electorate is happy to play the part of the United Auto Workers -everything's on the table except anything that would actually make a difference. In practice, because Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland are also on the brink of the abyss, a "European" bailout will be paid for by Germany.

Except the Germans won't be able to pay, either. So who will? It won't be the U.S. -- we're in debt up to our eyeballs, too, much of it held by the Chinese. China? Not likely -- they have money now but also have worse demographic issues than Europe or the U.S., which will become obvious in the next 10-15 years when all the young Chinese men start looking for brides who do not exist, because they were aborted. The Greek electorate can support the bureaucrats doing their sit-in, but it won't get them paid because, in the end, no one is going to have the money. The Greek government has been running a Ponzi scheme.

None of this is surprising -- these trends have been in place for almost half a century now, throughout the developed world. And our kids won't be able to maintain the status quo, nor will they want to, either. But that's where we are. Steyn explains why:

We hard-hearted, small-government guys are often damned as selfish types who care nothing for the general welfare. But, as the Greek protests make plain, nothing makes an individual more selfish than the socially equitable communitarianism of big government. Once a chap's enjoying the fruits of government health care, government-paid vacation, government-funded early retirement, and all the rest, he couldn't give a hoot about the general societal interest. He's got his, and to hell with everyone else. People's sense of entitlement endures long after the entitlement has ceased to make sense.

The party is over in Athens. They may not want to hear it, but it is.

Meanwhile, we've got our issues here, but things could get a lot worse. We could be like Greece. Fortunately, for the most part we aren't, despite the efforts of the governments of California, New York and a few other places. What boggles the mind is this: Greece is a comprehensive welfare state, socialist in government and in scope. And it is failing. Despite this evidence, President Obama and his party want us to have the same setup for this country, a comprehensive welfare state. This is why Obama continues to push for Obamacare even though the majority of Americans have made it clear they do not want such blandishments.

I will give President Obama and his allies the benefit of the doubt and assume that they have good intentions. I would prefer not to travel the road that is paved with their good intentions, though, because I know where the road leads.

Are you not entertained?

Bill Maher makes a joke about wishing Glenn Beck dead.

Sean Penn suggests that would like his critics to "die screaming of rectal cancer."

Should we be outrageously outraged at this outrageousness? Nah. I think the better course is to let our entertainers keep talking and sharing their wise, reasoned counsel. And in Penn's defense, he did go to Haiti and help out, so it means he is capable of compassion for at least some sectors of humanity. Just maybe not for you.

Another turn in the learning curve

Well, well, well. For a group that never misses a chance to excoriate the previous administration, it's funny how often Team Obama eventually realizes that the Bush-era morons weren't quite as moronic as first thought:

President Obama's advisers are nearing a recommendation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, be prosecuted in a military tribunal, administration officials said, a step that would reverse Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.'s plan to try him in civilian court in New York City.

Good thing, too, because it was always a monumentally stupid idea. New York has enough trouble these days without having a horrifying circus come to town, to say nothing of the madness of pretending that people who commit acts of war should be tried in civilian courts.

So why the change, which is sure to enrage Obama's left-wing base at a time when he needs them to remain quiet? WaPo writers Anne Kornblut and Peter Finn offer a suggestion:

If Obama accepts the likely recommendation of his advisers, the White House may be able to secure from Congress the funding and legal authority it needs to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and replace it with a facility within the United States. The administration has failed to meet a self-imposed one-year deadline to close Guantanamo.

But that seems silly, doesn't it? The Republicans oppose closing Gitmo on general principle and would offer no support for closing it. And what's in it for the lefties? Kornblut and Finn answer the question this way:

Privately, administration officials are bracing for the ire of disappointed liberals and even some government lawyers should the administration back away from promises to use civilian courts to adjudicate the cases of some of the 188 detainees who remain at Guantanamo.

Allow me to translate from Beltwayspeak: nothing.

This has been the problem all along for Obama: most of the true believers who came to Washington with him are as delusional as he is. Other than the baying liberals who carried Obama's sedan chair, most people simply didn't think or care that much about Gitmo, holding the eminently sensible view that (a) we have to keep the bad guys somewhere and (b) it better not be in my back yard. And most people also don't share the left-wing piety over such matters. If you ask the average person, all they want is for someone, anyone, to keep people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed from hurting them. Although it's taken over a year for Team Obama to understand that, this decision is a step in the right direction.

Guilty Pleasures Part Sixty-Four -- Fearless Maria Experiences March Madness

It's been a while since we did a Guilty Pleasures and Fearless Maria is joining me tonight to help talk about some songs.

Halt! Who goes there! Who has awakened Fearless Maria from her deep sleep?!

Uh, guess that would be me, Maria. So why were you in a deep sleep? Just because your school has conferences and you were sleeping in?

Oh. No, never mind. I thought it was Benster and the "Who Goes There" is only marketing!

10 years old and you already understand marketing better than some of my co-workers.

Well, maybe if they don't understand marketing, maybe they need to go back to school and have a conference!

Good thinking, Maria! Speaking of being in school, I was thinking about doing something tonight that relates to when I was in school.

When you were in school? That was a long time ago! Didn't you go to school with Cleopatra? Or was that Grover Cleveland?

No, I went to school with a lot of girls named Lisa. But not Lisa Simpson.

Good thing, too -- on the show she was only 8 and she has weird spiky hair. So anyway, what on earth are you going to do with your school days. Was there even music back then? Or did you just scrape your fingernails on the blackboard?

No, it wasn't that long ago. Anyway, since it's March, I'm thinking about songs I used to hear on the radio when we would go down to the state basketball tournament in Milwaukee. I was lucky because my high school made the state tourney six years in a row, from 1976 through 1981.

So that means that Grover Cleveland played basketball for your high school? And was Cleopatra a cheerleader? And maybe Lisa Simpson was in the pep band!

No, I didn't go to school with any of those people, but I did hear this song on the radio when we driving down to Milwaukee in 1976. It's the Bellamy Brothers, appearing here on German television, with:

Let Your Love Flow

Dad, it's a pretty good song, but I'm kinda confused. Why is the audience watching their backs? Were they trying to imitate Miles Davis, except dressed liked cowboys? There's a history lesson -- clothes change! Or maybe that's what they do in Germany! P.S. If you didn't know that clothes change, your nickname should be Tweedledumb.

Well, that could be it. I don't know -- maybe it is a German thing.

Next time they ought to turn around, don't you think?

Good advice, Maria. Shall we move on to 1977?

Okay. So did this next band peform with their sides to the audience? Maybe they played the Hokey-Pokey! That's what it's all about!

No, but they were interested in dancing. It's ABBA, in the middle of their 1970s period of world domination, singing one of their biggest hits:

Dancing Queen

Dad, I was right! They were singing sideways a little bit! And the audience certainly is suffering from the usual really bad 70s outfits! Although it does like everyone washed their hair, which is more than I can say for some of the videos you've shown me, Dad!

It's funny, but ABBA might be more popular now than they were then, Maria.

Well, they had the Mamma Mia movie and all that. At least that's what my classmates tell me.

Well, do you notice something about what happened in the 1970s, besides the bad clothing?

Looks like they did a lot of dancing. That was when disco was happening, right?

Oh, yeah, Maria. Oh, yeah. And when you got to 1978, it was all disco, all the time, especially these guys:

Night Fever

Dad, you said guys, right? They look and sound like girls, except for the weird bald dude with the beard! Are you sure they are guys?

At the time I wondered, Maria, but I have it on pretty good authority that they were. They are actually 3 brothers from Australia.

They don't sound like Aussies, Dad! And I like these Aussies better!

Me too, Maria. But the world didn't see it that way in 1978 and the Bee Gees had all the big success.

Well, if that's what the world thought, it must be what a fool believes!

Funny you should mention that, Maria. The next year (March, 1979) we heard a song by the Doobie Brothers that was called:

What a Fool Believes

Hey, welcome to the French Braid Factory! Well, that's what they could do with all that long hair! My goodness, they could really help out the Locks of Love. It was a good song, but my goodness, how did the singer get the words out from behind that big old beard he has. I'm surprised the song didn't get lost in there!

Grooming wasn't always a big thing in those days, Maria, which is why I don't have a lot of pictures of myself from that era.

Burned them all, didn't ya?

Well, no, but they are being held in a safe house in Wisconsin. Anyway, shall we move on to March, 1980?

Sure. What else would we do? Now were they dancing still?

Oh yeah, Maria. Oh yeah.

Rock With You

Dad, admit it. The reason you don't want me to see any pictures from 1980 is that you had a pair of glitter pants just like Michael Jackson, right? That's it, isn't it? Uh huh. I knew it! You were a dancing fool, weren't you, Dad!

No, all we wore in those days were Levi's corduroy pants from Fischer's Boys Store in Appleton, which is where everyone at my high school bought their pants.

I'm going to check with Auntie Coco and Auntie Margie about that one, Dad! I'll bet you had glitter pants. And I bet Uncle Pat and Uncle Paul had 'em, too! And maybe Uncle Mike had on some glitter Garanimals!

They won't give me up, Maria. They're sworn to secrecy. Anyway, we're on 1981, my senior year in high school. Xavier got beat in the first round that year and what did we have to hear on the radio?

Rapture

So that's some weird stuff! I didn't know Blondie was rapping! I hate rap, Dad! You know that! I said so 2 years ago! Read that post, people! And the other ones, too!

Okay, are you done with the commercial for your blog now, Maria?

No, I can go on for at least a 100 more years, Dad! Psych! Anyway, I told you I'm all about marketing, Dad!

Good point, Maria. Do you want to market the big finale, then?

Certainly. And my fee is only--

Well, we'll negotiate that offline, okay?

Darn it! Anyway, it's time to vote, people! Pick your favorite and put it in the comments section. And I want to give a big shout-out to Gino, who always votes and is a good example for the youth of America!

I'll bet that's the first time Gino's ever fielded that compliment, Maria!

Well, Dad -- you're okay, too. Almost as good as Gino, at least.

That's high praise indeed, Maria. High praise indeed.

All This Can Be Yours

Happy result #1:

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Alexi Giannoulias sought to blunt a potentially damaging political issue today about questions regarding his involvement in his family’s struggling bank, which he said he expects will likely fail in the coming months.

But questions were still left unanswered following a more than 70-minute meeting with the Chicago Tribune’s editorial board. Among them were exactly what Giannoulias knew about convicted bookmaker Michael Giorango’s criminal past when he received loans from Broadway Bank, and how many of the bank's troubled loans were made while Giannoulias was working there.

Giannoulias also sought to explain nearly $70 million the bank paid out in dividends to him and his family in recent years, saying $29 million of that was taken out of the bank to diversify the family’s investments.

There's a lot more to this typically sordid Chicagoland story, but let's say this: Giannoulias certainly seems to have the skill set to be an Illinois senator, eh?

Then there's Happy Result #2:

Once a source of national leaders of both political parties, New York state has descended into a bizarre, riveting spectacle of corruption and political debasement, with its governor facing calls to resign as well as new charges of accepting illicit perks and lying under oath, the dean of its congressional delegation giving up his gavel over corruption charges and another House member announcing he won’t run again amid allegations of sexual harassment.

And that was just yesterday.

The latest, dizzying episodes of political disgrace in New York follow a half-decade of disaster during which three top state politicians were forced out amid allegations of everything from large-scale theft to small-scale sexual indiscretions.

Just a reminder -- these are the people who are demanding to redesign how you receive your healthcare.

Working for the Clampdown

I don't know why I keep hearing The Clash in my head right now, but I do. Now war is declared, and battle come down.

When they kick at your front door

How you gonna come?

-- Paul Simonon, "The Guns of Brixton"

I don't know if we're quite there yet, but it seems to be getting closer, now that President Obama has patiently explained that it's time to eat the crap sandwich:

“Everything there is to say about healthcare has been said and just about everyone has said it,” Obama said. “So now is the time to make a decision about how to finally reform healthcare so that it works, not just for the insurance companies, but for America’s families and businesses.”

Shut up, he explained. Well, I'm not quite ready to shut up just yet. A few thoughts:

• Do you remember how annoyed President Obama got with the Republicans who came brandishing copies of the various behemoth bills at the "summit" of last week? Obama chided the Republicans for using props. Which is why Obama had white-clad leftist doctors standing behind him when he made yesterday's announcement. Actually, I guess those aren't props. Perhaps the correct term is "human shields."


• But this latest iteration of the bill is different, we are told, because Obama cherry-picked a few ideas from the Republicans and lathered them on top of the crap sandwich, like a layer of tasty stone-ground mustard.


• I'm also quite tired of the almost casual defamation of people who work for insurance companies. I have friends and family who work for larger insurers -- most people in the Twin Cities do, given the corporate presence of United Healthcare -- and they are decent, ethical people who work hard and don't rely on dishonest speechifying as they ply their trade.


• And while I'm annoyed by Obama and his low-rent machinations, I'm hardly the angriest blogger on the scene. If you doubt that, check out this guy.

How Obamacare Can Work For You! (Er, Or Your Sibling)

I've been all wrong about this Obamacare business. If only I'd realized the advantages siblings can get if only they support it:

Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he's obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson's brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Doesn't mean anything, folks. Nothing to see here. And I have proof that it's not a quid pro quo or anything like that. You see, the President is just a big-hearted guy. You doubt that? Well, read on for this Mr. Dilettante exclusive!

It's actually a pilot program at this point and I really shouldn't divulge this, but I did get a note from David Axelrod that it's okay to mention this on deep background, so here goes: the President also has a similar program in place for loudmouth conservative bloggers. If I change my ways and now provide full-throated support for the President's insightful and brilliant healthcare initiative, it tuns out that my brother Paul will be named (shh, let's keep this quiet):

Ambassador to Portugal

I'm happy to do this for my brother, of course. Lisbon is lovely this time of year and Paulie has promised to lay in some genuine Port wine (from Porto, natch) as well. Bribery? No. The term is Win-Win!

Thank you for your generosity, Mr. President! Now dammit McConnell, get outta the way!

A Tonic for the Troops

If you aren't fond of tea, or you don't enjoy looking at the coffee grounds and realizing that the party turns out to be just another front for silly liberals, now comes this:

Tired of the Coffee Party and the Tea Party? We’re the newest game in town!

I woke up this morning and realized I didn’t want tea or coffee. I wanted hot cocoa! So I turned on my computer and in a few minutes founded a new political movement — The Cocoa Party!

Yes, it was that simple.

Then I got one of my friends at the newspaper where I used to work to violate all professional journalistic ethics by writing a puff-piece about me without revealing that I used to work there.

Thanks!

Also, thanks for not mentioning that I used to really really really like Kool-Aid.

As for me, someone send me a note when they start the Gin Party.